liberapediawikiaorg-20200215-history
Talk:Ridiculous quotes from Conservapedia
RQFC Just an idea I had this morning, I expect this page will grow pretty quickly and may become popular. Liberal-Ajuk 04:39, 26 August 2007 (EDT) Removed talk page comments How about a page filled with talk page comments that have been removed from Conservapedia? "liberal Jim W" of Yahoo!Answers/Politics fame says: I dont know how there is going to be access to data removed from and by conservapdia. Those brainwashed homeschooled right wing robots who started it in the first place are so deep in their own cult-like projectioning they cant even see what they look like. It would be funny though, and perhaps even informative, if we would analyze content removed for conservapedia for truth and found it. It wouldnt be ther first time. I find the hostile bias and projectioning disclaimers of American conservaties and conservapedia to be a psychadellic joke at best, an overwhelming disservice to future generations at worst. But maybe not, if that is in fact opening up a dialogue? Also, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here" may be a fitting warning to internet trolls, but the irony will go over their heads. They can and will use the remark to say "See? Liberal bias!" Maybe the exact quote with a disclaimer added from Libealpedia for added clarity? Anyway, keep up the good work Liberalpedia. Link Has anybody yet tried to create that page on Conservapedia that the template at the top links to? Liberal-AJUK talk 18:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Please point out why they are ridiculous I appreciate the presentation of the "Ridiculous quotes from Conservapedia". Please understand, though, that recognizing why they are ridiculous requires a background of information that the reader, like myself, may not possess. The perception of "Ridiculous" is, after all, an opinion which may or may not be based on facts. Even when based on facts, it is often an interpretation of those facts within the context a larger body of information. I believe that this forum is an ideal location to expand beyond the tenants of Wikipedia which attempts to restrict itself to factual and verifiable information while avoiding editorializing. This restriction is a double edged sword. We are, as human beings, reliant of both intellectual and emotional content of ideas in order to find meaning. Purely factual information presents no context within which to grasp the meaning. Pure editorializing present no facts with which to judge the validity of the argument. All to often, editorial forums like Conservapedia present themselves as having a factual basis when, in fact, they pick and choose from the facts, neglecting information that is in conflict with their underlying motives. More specifically, here is what I mean; I I recognize the larger context within which the quotations regarding dinosaurs is ridiculous. For myself, the quote "Young Earth Creationists believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the creation week5 approximately 6,000 years" is ridiculous because; 1 "Young Earth Creationists" should really be replaced with "the editors of Conservapedia" or "We" if they are to be honest. Clearly "Conservapedia" is a forum for one of the groups that make up the Conservatives in the United States. By using "Young Earth Creationists" the article presents itself as being unbiased. 2 The only "factual" data supporting the idea that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, that I am aware of, is the Fred Flintstone cartoons that ran on television. While I am currently not of a mind to search for references that back up my understanding, I do understand that all credible science is clear on the fact that dinosaurs and humans did not coexists. II On the other hand, I am not clear as to why '"In respect to homosexuality and mental health, studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse"' is ridiculous. This may or may not be a factual statement. I simply have no information with which to base my assessment. If you have a clear understanding of what makes it ridiculous, please, tell me. :A Are there "studies"? Does Conservapedia present references to these studies? Are they credible? :B Is the correlation statistically significant but otherwise unimportant? The difference between statistical significance and importance is simply that if you have a large enough sample, you will find statistical significance that is otherwise unimportant. :C Is there a correlation due to a secondary factor? For instance, one might find that people with red hair have a higher rate of anxiety and lower self esteem as adults. A secondary factor may very well account for the correlation. For instance, it might simply be that children with red hair are teased more in school. Even if true, that "homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems", it is more likely that the problems are the result of how they are treated rather than a result of the homosexuality. :D Do you simply "know" that they are ridiculous but can't quite recall why? Fair enough. III The quotations from Liberal hypocrisy completely escape me. Is the quotation from the movie? Or is George Clooney for gun control and he is being criticized for playing a the part of a military man even though he is for gun control? I think that the point is the second. What I'm suggesting here is that this forum is an excellent place to bridge the gap between Wikipedia, which attempts to present facts without editorilizing and Conservapedia which editorialized while pretending to present the facts. I am interested in what you know, what you think, and how you feel. I got what you know (the quotes) and how you feel (that they are ridiculous) but all to often your not putting what you think on the table. I'd like to get that as well. Thanks Klingons First of all, they spelled Qo'noS wrong. Second, they claim that the Klingons are communists. How is that not on here? Saying that the Klingons are communist is like saying that the Holy Roman Empire was communist, it makes no sense at all. Meta5 18:19, January 3, 2012 (UTC)